Slashdot Mirror
Not Just Netflix: Google Challenges Canada's Power To Regulate Online Video
An anonymous reader writes Yesterday's report
on the regulatory battle between Netflix and Canada's broadcast
regulator has now grown as Google has jumped into the fight. Faced
with similar demands from the CRTC, Google has refused to provide it
with requested information, arguing
that it is not part of the Canadian broadcast system and not subject
to CRTC regulation. "The Google position is notable because it is presumably not based on the question of presence within Canada, since Google maintains a significant Canadian presence. Rather, the core challenge will likely focus on whether a service such as Youtube (which once went by the slogan “Broadcast Yourself”) can properly be characterized as broadcasting for the purposes of current Canadian law."
From yesterdays post:
Michael Geist reports that Netflix and Google are ready to challenge it in a case that could head to the Supreme Court of Canada.
There is a tiny bit of new news here. It's gone from speculation to being confirmed, but really, this is just a repost of the same thing.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
This fixation on whether or not its 'broadcasting' is just a distraction. If the governments wants to regulate streaming video it will just revise the legislation granting the regulatory body authority over streaming video within the country.
Then what's Netflix/Google going to do?
Think about it. If netflix gets a pass, then Bell/Telus/Shaw just have to switch from a 'broadcast model' to a 'streaming model' and then they too will be exempt from Canadian Content rules. And they are on the verge of launching their own streaming services as we speak ... hell they all 3 already offer video on demand libraries.
The result is that eventually nobody will "broadcast" anything, and the canadian content rules will be mooted.
The end game is either
a) that the CRTC will be granted regulatory oversight on streaming video providers operating in Canada to enforce Canadian content guidelines in some fashion on all operators.
or
b) that the rules on Canadian content will be repealed entirely on all forms of video distribution.
Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs, and is lawyering for the sake of lawyering. If netflix "wins" then Canada can just change the CRTC mandate at the stroke of a pen to include them anyway.
The only argument worth having is within Canada with Canadians to decide whether Canadian content rules are desirable or not. If they are, then apply them to streaming service operators. If they are not, then get rid of them.
Its that simple.
Dithering about whether or not streaming is a form of broadcasting for the purposes of canadian content rules is just splitting hairs
No it is not. When looking a a law, you also have to look at the historic reasoning behind it. Until very recently, broadcasting meant that once you put it on a radiowave or a cable TV system, the broadcaster had very little control on who would receive it. A radio or TV system could receive any content that was broadcast by the sender (hence the term broad-cast).
The laws that were setup under that system, are meant for that system as well. It provides a clear definition on what a broadcaster is, so that the law would not be used for other purposes.
Technological advances have changed the landscape, and if the CRTC (an executive branch of government), wants to broaden its authority to 1-on-1 content rather than 1-on-255.255.255.255 content, it should consult with the people first, in the form of the democratically elected lawmakers.
This is not nitpicking, this is respecting the law as it was written.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
I can see regulating limited spectrum, but streaming is different. Limiting streaming is corporate protectionism at best and censorship at worst.
Silence is a state of mime.
The purpose of the BROADCAST regulator derives, historically, from the limited number of channels available on TV, so it was argued that there was a public interest in controlling who put what on the air. The internet is surely more like the press, where there are no such limitations, so there is no justification for regulation. That the broadcast regulator is trying to butt into internet activities does seem like mission creep - always popular with the regulators as generating more jobs for their people, and with politicians who gain some leverage over the media. NOT good for freedom of speech however...
How many times do we have to say it, friend? We're very sorry about Céline Dion and Brian Adams.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
> If the CRTC would not exist no Canadian artist could ever dream of being
> able to broadcast or make anything as american media only care
> about american shit even when operating outside of america, fuck them.
Ahemmm...
* Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians
* Hank Snow
* Oscar Peterson
* Paul Anka
* Ronnie Hawkins (US born, but made it big after moving to Canada)
* Leonard Cohen
* Joni Mitchell
* Neil Young
* and a whole bunch of lesser-known artists
All made their mark before the first "CanCon" legislation/rules took effect on January 18, 1971. At that point, Canadian radio started seriously sucking. (Yes, I was around back then; get off my lawn). We heard the same small group of Canadian artists over and over and over. There was a standing joke that "AM Radio" really meant "Anne Murray Radio".
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user